Commission Decision No 1758/2000/ECSC of 9 August 2000 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of non-alloy steel originating in the People's Republic of China, India and Romania, accepting an undertaking with regard to India and Romania and collecting definitively the provisional duties imposed
Date: 2000-08-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, India, Romania, anti-dumping duty, flat product, import

10.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 202/21

COMMISSION DECISION No 1758/2000/ECSC

of 9 August 2000

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of non-alloy
steel originating in the People's Republic of China, India and Romania, accepting an undertaking
with regard to India and Romania and collecting definitively the provisional duties imposed

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Coal and
Steel Community,

Having regard to Commission Decision No 2277/96/ECSC of
28 November 1996 on protection against dumped imports
from countries not members of the European Coal and Steel
Community (1), as amended by Decision No 1000/1999/
ECSC (2), and in particular Articles 8 and 9 thereof,

After consulting the Advisory Committee,

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

A. PROVISIONAL MEASURES

The Commission, by Decision No 307/2000/ECSC (3)
(the ‘provisional Decision’) imposed a provisional anti-
dumping duty on imports into the Community of
certain hot-rolled flat products of non-alloy steel origin-
ating in the People's Republic of China,
India and
Romania and falling within CN codes ex 7208 51 30,
ex 7208 51 50, ex 7208 51 91, ex 7208 51 99 and
ex 7208 52 91.

B. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE

the

the provisional anti-
Following the imposition of
and the
dumping duty,
exporting producers
interested
complainant made written representations;
parties which so requested were granted an opportunity
to be heard. Parties were informed of the essential facts
and considerations on the basis of which it was intended
to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-
dumping duty and the definitive collection of amounts
secured by way of the provisional duty. They were also
granted a period within which to make representations
subsequent to this disclosure.

The oral and written comments submitted by the inter-
ested parties were considered and, where appropriate,
the definitive findings have been changed accordingly.

C. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

It is recalled that recital 9 of the provisional Decision
described the product concerned as flat products of
non-alloy steel, not in coils, not further worked than
hot-rolled, without patterns in relief, with a thickness of

(1) OJ L 308, 29.11.1996, p. 11.
(2) OJ L 122, 12.5.1999, p. 35.
(3) OJ L 36, 11.2.2000, p. 4.

more than 10 mm and a width of 600 mm or more
falling within CN codes ex 7208 51 30 (TARIC code
code
ex 7208 51 50
7208 51 30 10),
7208 51 50 10),
code
ex 7208 51 91
7208 51 91 10)
and ex 7208 51 99 (TARIC code
7208 51 99 10), or with a thickness of 4,75 mm up to
10 mm and a width of 2 050 mm or more falling
within
code
7208 52 91 10) and originating in the People's Republic
of China, India and Romania.

ex 7208 52 91

(TARIC
(TARIC

CN code

(TARIC

(5)

In the absence of any new arguments concerning the
definition of
the product concerned and the like
product, the findings set out in recitals 9 to 11 of the
provisional Decision are confirmed.

D. DUMPING

1. Normal value

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, INDIA AND ROMANIA

Determination of normal value

(6)

Since no comments concerning normal value were
presented the findings set out in recitals 12 to 25 of the
provisional Decision are confirmed.

2. Export price

(7)

(8)

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, INDIA AND ROMANIA

Since no comments concerning export price were
presented the findings set out in recitals 26 to 29 of the
provisional Decision are confirmed.

3. Comparison

The Romanian exporting producer claimed that the cif
price at Community frontier level had not been calcu-
lated correctly since undue account had been taken of
insurance and ocean freight. Since it was found that this
claim was justified, adjustments were made to the export
price for these elements in accordance with the evidence
obtained.

Since no other comments concerning the comparison
were presented the findings set out in recitals 30 and 31
of the provisional Decision are confirmed.

L 202/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.8.2000

4. Dumping margins

People's Republic of China

55,5 %

Methodology

(9)

(10)

(11)

Several Chinese exporting producers requested more
explanation of the Commission's decision not to grant
individual treatment. In this respect it should be noted
that all of the companies were either wholly or majority
State-owned, the independence from State interference
could not be guaranteed and there was thus a risk of
circumvention of the measures. Therefore, in line with
the consistent practice of the Community institutions, it
was decided not to grant individual treatment.

The Chinese exporting producers, representing 74 % of
the total exports to the Community registered by Euro-
stat, objected to the calculation of the dumping margin
using a categorisation of the product concerned based
on CN codes and requested a more refined methodo-
logy, differentiating between different qualities of steel.
This request was granted. Each product type exported by
the cooperating Chinese exporting producers was, there-
fore, compared with the Indian normal values of the
corresponding product types (also taking into account
the quality of steel).

For the remaining Chinese sales, representing 26 % of
total export sales to the Community registered by Euro-
stat,
facts
findings had to be made on the basis of
available, in accordance with Article 18(1) of the basic
Decision. In this case it was found that the most reason-
able approach was to use the same methodology as that
used to determine the injury elimination margin. Thus
the residual dumping margin was determined by using
the same product categories and quarters used to deter-
mine the residual elimination margin (see recital 59).
This approach was considered appropriate since there
was no reason to believe that a non-cooperating
exporting producer had dumped at a level lower than
the cooperating exporting producers. Moreover, parties
should not be given a bonus for non-cooperation.

Level of dumping

(12) Weighted average normal value per product type was
compared with the weighted average export price on an
ex-works basis and at the same level of trade in accord-
ance with Article 2(11) of Decision No 2277/96/ECSC
(the ‘basic Decision’).

(13) After revision of the calculations, the dumping margins
definitively established, expressed as a percentage of the
cif price at Community frontier level, are as follows:

India
— Steel Authority of India Ltd
— Residual

Romania
— Sidex SA
— Residual

51,1 %
51,1 %

12,1 %
52,6 %

E. INJURY

1. Community industry

(14) No new information has been submitted with respect to
the definition of the Community industry. Therefore, the
findings set out at recitals 39 to 44 of the provisional
Decision are confirmed.

2. Consumption

(15) As no new information has been received regarding the
data on consumption determined at
the provisional
stage, the findings set out at recitals 45 and 46 of the
provisional Decision are confirmed.

3. Imports from the countries concerned

Cumulation

(16)

Chinese and Romanian exporting producers repeated the
arguments made at the provisional stage that the effects
of their imports to the Community should not be cumu-
latively assessed with those of
the other countries
concerned, without however providing any further infor-
mation or evidence. The findings set out at recitals 47
and 48 of the provisional Decision in respect of cumula-
tion of dumped imports from the People's Republic of
China, India and Romania are therefore confirmed.

Volume and market shares

(17) As no new information was received regarding volumes
and market shares of dumped imports, the findings set
out at
the provisional Decision are
confirmed.

recital 49 of

Price undercutting

(18)

Romanian exporters contended that the calculation of
price undercutting should be revised as regards the cif
Community frontier price calculation and the physical
differences between imported Romanian products and
the Community industry's products.

Chinese exporting producers also alleged that the impor-
ter's margin used by the Commission at the provisional
stage was too low. In addition, they requested that price
undercutting be calculated taking into account
the
quality of steel.

10.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 202/23

c i f C o m m u n i t y f r o n t i e r p r i c e

(19) As for the calculation of the dumping margin (see recital
10), the Romanian cif Community frontier import prices
were revised to take into account the additional informa-
tion submitted.

The Chinese request with regard to price undercutting
was accepted and the calculations were adjusted in line
with the methodology described in recital 59.

turnover, obtained by multiplying the average price per
category of the Community industry by the tonnage of
the comparable imported categories; this method was
found appropriate since it takes into account both the
quantity imported and the amplitude of price variations
the Community-like
between different categories of
product.

(23)

The definitive price undercutting margins are therefore:

I m p o r t e r ' s m a r g i n

(20) As regards the importer's margin, 8 % was added, at the
preliminary stage, to the cif Community frontier price to
cover customs clearance and post importation costs.
This amount reflected 4 % importer's profit, and miscel-
laneous import costs. This amount, as set out in recital
50 of the provisional Decision, was based on informa-
tion collected from unrelated importers in the course of
the investigation.

In claiming that the above margin was too low, the
relied on information
Chinese exporting producers
provided by two unrelated importers that had not coop-
erated in the investigation and had made themselves
known at a very late stage in the proceeding. As, there-
fore, the Commission was not in a position to verify the
information supplied, which in any event referred to the
period following the investigation period (the ‘IP’), the
conclusions reached in recital 50 of
the provisional
Decision are confirmed.

A d j u s t m e n t

f o r p h y s i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s

(21) An adjustment was

requested by

the Romanian
exporting producer to take into account alleged physical
differences between Romanian and Community prod-
ucts. Analysis of the evidence available, however, does
not justify an adjustment, as in fact both Romanian and
Community products conform to international stan-
dards. There are therefore no grounds for granting any
adjustment as regard differences in physical characteris-
tics.

C o n c l u s i o n o n p r i c e u n d e r c u t t i n g

(22)

In the light of the above, the appropriate amendments
have been made to the price undercutting calculations. It
is recalled that at the provisional stage the price under-
cutting margins were established by quarter for each
category, and were then weighted by tonnage imported.
At
the
weighting between categories should be more accurately
expressed by weighting on the basis of the hypothetical

the definitive stage,

it became apparent

that

People's Republic of China

7,5 %

India
— Steel Authority of India Ltd
— Other

Romania
— Sidex SA
— Other

12,9 %
12,9 %

7,1 %
14,7 %

4. Situation of the Community industry

(24)

the
In addition,

It was argued by some exporting producers that the
annual data examined by the Commission in its provi-
sional Decision could not lead to the conclusion of a
the Community
deterioration of
situation of
industry.
it was questioned whether the
subsequent quarterly analysis made by the Commission
was pertinent, given the excellent performance of the
Community industry in the IP as a whole. In particular,
it was argued that a trend during the IP could not take
precedence over actual performance throughout
this
period. The compatibility of the Commission's methodo-
logy as regards Article 6(1) of the basic Decision was
questioned, in particular in relation with the analysis by
quarter of the IP.

In addition,
it was claimed that the Commission had
taken into consideration post-IP information, without
sufficiently explaining why it had derogated from its
normal practice. This was also alleged to be contrary to
the provisions of Article 6(1) of the basic Decision.

(25)

The Commission examined these claims, in particular as
regards the relevant provisions of both Article 3 and
Article 6 of the basic Decision. In fact, the provisional
analysis took into consideration the volume of
the
dumped imports and the effect of the dumped imports
on prices in the Community market, and the consequent
impact of those imports on the Community industry.
The examination of the latter impact included an evalu-
ation of all relevant economic factors and indices having
a bearing on the state of the industry.

L 202/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.8.2000

(26) At

the provisional stage,

the Commission's analysis
referred to annual data for a large range of indicators in
the period considered, and was supplemented by an
examination on the basis of half-yearly information
during the period considered of the volumes and prices
of dumped imports, and of the prices and profitability of
the Community industry. Finally a quarterly analysis of
the prices and profitability of the Community industry
in the IP completed the examination. This was done, as
explained at recital 59 of
the provisional Decision,
because it was considered that an examination of prices
and profitability during the IP as a whole (a period of 15
months) would have led to inappropriate conclusions,
the Community market having experienced pronounced
changes over this period.

(27)

(28)

(29)

In their claims, the exporting producers did not submit
any information contradicting the finding that
the
Community market had changed profoundly during the
IP, and that this situation was exceptional as compared
to previous periods. In fact, they limited themselves to
contesting the Commission analysis and submitting very
general additional information. This information did not
lead to the conclusion that the economic indicators set
out in the provisional Decision had been inappropriately
assessed.

In fact, nothing in Article 6(1) of the basic Decision
prevents the quarterly analysis of data for the IP. Further,
it was necessary to take into consideration a longer IP of
15 months, in order to reflect as precisely as possible
the circumstances of the Community industry. In any
case,
it should be noted that an IP of six months, a
length which is foreseen in Article 6(1) of the basic
Decision, would have led to the same conclusions on the
existence of material

injury in this case.

The Commission analysis at the provisional stage took
into consideration all relevant economic indicators avail-
able. It is clear that some indicators seen in isolation
could lead to different conclusions. However,
if as
suggested by some exporting producers, the examination
was limited to an analysis of annual economic indicators
only, this would lead in fact to incomplete conclusions
in the present case. Based on the above, and in the
absence of any new elements
the
economic indicators established and evaluated at the
provisional stage are inaccurate, the conclusions set out
at recital 68 of the provisional Decision on the deteri-
oration of the situation of the Community industry are
confirmed.

indicating that

(31)

(32)

F. CAUSATION

1. Effect of dumped imports

Exporting producers contended that a link between the
dumped imports, which cumulatively reached their
greatest volumes in the two first quarters of the IP, and
the situation of the Community industry, which showed
its greatest deterioration in the last two quarters of the
IP, had not been established.

In this context, it should be noted that in the early part
of the IP, apparent consumption was good and prices in
the Community were consequently at relatively high
levels. However, it soon became clear, as pointed out at
recitals 75 to 77 of the provisional Decision, that this
increased apparent consumption and the significant
volume of dumped imports was disproportionate as
compared to the actual consumption at
time.
that
Indeed, stocks reached substantial
levels. When the
mismatch became too important in the second part of
the IP, the market deteriorated significantly. Indeed, at
that point in time, the price level of the Community
industry decreased by around 25 %.

It is recalled from recital 71 of the provisional Decision
that there is a time lag between importation of dumped
products and their effect on the situation of
the
Community industry becoming clear. Apart from the
stock effect mentioned above, the link between the rise
in imports and the deterioration of the situation of the
Community industry therefore exists by way of its price
and quantity effects on the Community market. The
existence of high stock levels depressed prices on the
market, and led to falling orders for the Community
financial deterioration
industry, with the
observed.

resultant

Further, this phenomenon was reinforced by the fact
that dumped imports from the countries concerned,
although showing some reductions later
in the IP,
remained at sustained levels.

(33)

Based on the above analysis, the provisional conclusion
set out at recital 79 of
the provisional Decision is
confirmed. It is clear that dumped imports from the
countries in question, made in quantities quite dispro-
portionate to what the market could absorb, and with
significant price undercutting, caused material injury to
the Community industry.

5. Conclusion on injury

2. Effect of other factors

(30)

Taking into account the significant price undercutting by
the dumped imports and their increasing volume and
market share as well as the deterioration of the situation
of the Community industry,
it is confirmed that the
Community industry suffered material injury within the
meaning of Article 3(1) of the basic Decision.

(34)

Consumption

It was alleged by exporting producers
falling
demand from the tube and shipbuilding industries was
responsible
the
injury
the
Community industry.

experienced

that

for

by

10.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 202/25

(35)

(36)

(37)

(38)

It should first be noted that no data supporting this
allegation was presented by the exporting producers
concerned. Further, despite the sending of questionnaires
in the framework of the Community interest aspects of
the investigation, no information on the situation in
either of these downstream industries was provided.

The tube and shipbuilding industries are, however,
the product concerned and
important consumers of
there may therefore be an element of injury arising from
falling demand from these industries. However, this is
not such as to break the link between the injury suffered
and the dumped imports, in view in particular of the
increased consumption which occurred between 1995
and the IP (see recital 80 of the provisional Decision).

Situation of the other Community producers

that other
It was alleged by exporting producers
Community producers were responsible for the loss of
market share of the Community industry and its deteri-
orating
information was
situation. However
submitted in support of this.

no

The position of other Community producers is set out at
recitals 82 and 83 of the provisional Decision. It is clear
from this that to some extent an increase in market
share of these producers occurred between 1997 and the
IP when the market share of the Community industry
decreased. From the
to the
Commission, it was also concluded that the decreasing
sales volumes of these producers in the period consid-
ered and their falling market share between 1995 and
the IP occurred at a time when dumped imports
increased.

information available

In any event, however, while it cannot be excluded that
other Community producers may have contributed to
the deterioration of the situation of the Community
industry, given their sales volume and market share
during the IP, this is not sufficient to break the causal
link between the injury suffered and the dumped
imports.

Oversupply

(39)

Exporting producers alleged that some injury may have
been caused by the Community industry's overproduc-
tion, with consequent oversupply
in relation to
consumption.

the
(40) An examination of
Community
consumption, however,
demonstrates that no situation of oversupply on the part
In tonnes per
of

the Community industry existed.

the trends in production of

industry

and

month, production and consumption variations between
two consecutive periods developed as follows:

Variation

1996/1995

1997/1996

IP/1997

Production

– 9 673

+ 31 114

– 28 746

Consumption

– 50 748

+ 36 220

+ 46 360

(41)

It is clear from the above that Community industry's
production did not develop in excess of market demand,
and was in fact significantly below the growth of the
market between 1997 and the IP. This suggests that any
element of oversupply was clearly due to the dumped
imports and the resultant situation of overstocking, and
was not the result of the behaviour of the Community
industry.

Anti-competitive behaviour of the Community industry

(42)

The allegation of anti-competitive behaviour on the part
of the Community industry addressed at recitals 85 to
87 of the provisional Decision was repeated, without
however any further information or evidence being
provided.

The provisional findings are therefore confirmed.

(43)

(44)

(45)

Imports from other third countries

Exporting producers claimed that
the imposition of
duties only on the countries subject to investigation was
discriminatory and raised substantial issues of causality.
In support of this, they pointed out that imports from
other countries, notably FYROM, Poland,
the Czech
Republic, Bulgaria and Ukraine, had also been substan-
tial during the IP. The market share of the latter coun-
tries in the IP was 10,5 % as compared to a share of
13,6 % for the countries subject to the investigation,
while their prices averaged 325 euro/tonne compared to
317 euro/tonne for the dumped imports. In sum, they
claimed that
these other
the export performance of
countries was similar to that of the countries investi-
gated.

It is recalled that this issue was examined at length in
recitals 88 to 96 of the provisional Decision, and the
above claim by exporting producers has not brought to
light any new consideration in this respect.

The conclusions at recital 96 of the provisional Decision
imports from other
are therefore confirmed. Even if
third countries may have contributed to the injury
this alone is
suffered by the Community industry,
considered insufficient to break the causal
link estab-
lished between the dumped imports concerned and the
injury of the Community industry.

L 202/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.8.2000

(46)

(47)

(48)

(49)

(50)

(51)

Situation of the world market

Certain exporting producers continued to claim that the
instability of the world steel market, and in particular
the Asian crisis, disrupted the Community market and
was responsible for the situation of the Community
industry.

It

It is not contested that fluctuations in world prices and
developments in world trade had a negative effect on the
Community industry.
is recalled however that, as
stated in recital 101 of the provisional Decision, this
alone cannot explain the sharp price depression and
consequent deterioration of the Community industry's
international developments
profitability.
cannot justify trade at unfair prices which is found to be
injuring the Community industry.

In addition,

The conclusions at recitals 100 and 101 of the provi-
sional Decision are therefore confirmed.

3. Conclusion on causation

recital 102 of

In the light of the above, the conclusion on causation set
out at
the provisional Decision is
confirmed.
In summary, while other factors, such as
imports from other third countries, the behaviour of
other Community producers
the worldwide
instability of the steel market, may have contributed to
the difficult situation of the Community industry, this
does not detract
the
product concerned from the People's Republic of China,
India and Romania,
taken in isolation, have caused
material

injury to the Community industry.

from the fact

imports of

that

and

competitive environment unaffected by dumping prac-
tices is re-established.

I. DEFINITIVE MEASURES

1. Injury elimination level

(52)

(53)

The Indian exporting producer argued that the anti-
dumping duty should be set at the level of the undercut-
ting margin found, i.e. 12,6 % for India, a level far below
the level of the duty imposed at the provisional stage
(21,8 %).

effect of

It should be borne in mind that in line with the relevant
jurisprudence, the price-undercutting margin expresses
the dumped imports on the
the price
Community industry, as provided for in Article 3 of the
basic Decision. The undercutting margin is therefore an
injury indicator, among others, which has to be taken
into consideration in the injury analysis.

(54) Once the existence of material

injury has been estab-
lished, the Commission will, in order to comply with the
lesser-duty-rule, establish an injury elimination margin
in order to examine whether a duty based on a level
below the dumping margin will be sufficient to remove
injury caused by the dumped imports. The purpose of
the determination of the injury elimination margin is
therefore completely different from that of the calcula-
tion of the undercutting margin.

G. COMMUNITY INTEREST

(55)

Since the publication of the provisional Decision, the
Commission has received comments on the Community
interest from neither the Community industry, nor from
users or importers/traders of the product concerned. The
findings set out at recitals 103 to 109 of the provisional
Decision are confirmed.

H. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

Romanian exporting producers alleged that the imposi-
tion of anti-dumping measures in this proceeding would
slow down the process of restructuring the Romanian
industry and jeopardise the process of accession to the
Community.

context,

the Commission notes

that
the
In this
intensifying its
Community will pursue the aim of
economic links with Romania. At
the same time,
however, they expect Romanian exporting producers to
operate on the Community market in accordance with
international agreements.

It should be noted that anti-dumping measures are not
aimed at removing products originating in Romania
from the Community market but at ensuring that a

This argument is therefore irrelevant.

The Indian exporting producer also contested the
method used for calculating the injury elimination
margin and by way of consequence the duty imposed at
the provisional stage.
It also proposed an alternative
methodology for the calculation of the injury elimina-
tion margin.

(56)

In this context, it is recalled that the calculation of the
injury elimination margin has to be made in the light of
the circumstances of each case and is aimed at removing
the injury suffered by the Community industry.

(57) At the provisional stage, the Commission calculated the
injury elimination margin for each category of
the
product concerned and for each quarter of the IP. These
margins were the differences, expressed as percentages,
between the non-injurious prices of
the Community
industry and cif import prices at the Community fron-
tier, divided by these cif prices. Individual margins were
then calculated for each category for the IP as a whole
by weighting the results of the quarterly analysis by the
tonnage imported in each quarter. This was done to
eliminate distortions arising from the sharp fall in prices
(–25 %, see recital 66 of the provisional Decision) that
occurred between the first and last quarters of the IP.
Finally, the injury elimination margin for the product
concerned was calculated by weighting by tonnage the
individual margins calculated in the IP for each category.

10.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 202/27

(58)

the calculation suggested by the Indian
If adopted,
exporting producer would in fact minimise the effect of
the dramatic price fall that occurred, and treating the IP
as a whole would introduce the price distortions the
Commission's calculation avoids. It would also fail to
accurately reflect the injury to be removed. The Indian
claim therefore cannot be accepted.

(59) As for the price undercutting determination (see recital
18), the Chinese and Romanian exporting producers also
requested that the calculation of the injury elimination
margin be revised on the basis of the additional informa-
tion they submitted. The necessary modifications have
duly been made where appropriate.

As regards the injury elimination margin for Chinese
exporting producers, this was calculated by using the
information provided by the cooperating exporting
producers, taking into account the quality of steel.

It is recalled that exports by these cooperating compa-
nies represented around 74 % of the total exports shown
by Eurostat (see recital 10). For these 74 %, a margin
was calculated using the methodology applied to
Romanian and Indian exporting producers. For
the
remaining 26 %, a margin was calculated using the
highest injury elimination margins found in the IP, by
quarter and by category of product,
for cooperating
exporting producers. These injury elimination margins
were finally weighted by the tonnages represented by the
74 % and 26 % above.

(60)

Finally, the weighting of the injury margins has also
been revised in line with the method described in recital
22 for price undercutting.

Based on the above, the definitive injury elimination
margins are therefore as follows:

representative quantities and for which the highest
margin was found.

2. Level of definitive duties

(61) As the margins calculated above are lower than the
dumping margins finally established, it is considered that
a definitive anti-dumping duty should be imposed at the
level of the injury elimination margins in accordance
with Article 9(4) of the basic Decision.

(62)

the present

investigation. Therefore,

The individual company anti-dumping duty rates speci-
fied in this Decision were established on the basis of the
they
findings of
reflect the situation found during that investigation with
respect to these companies. These duty rates (as opposed
to the countrywide duty applicable to ‘all other compa-
nies’) are thus exclusively applicable to imports of prod-
ucts originating in the country concerned and produced
by the companies and thus by the specific legal entities
mentioned. Imported products produced by any other
company not specifically mentioned in the operative
this Decision with its name and address,
part of
including entities related to those specifically mentioned,
cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subject to
the duty rate applicable to ‘all other companies’.

duty

anti-dumping

(63) Any claim requesting the application of these individual
(for
example
company
rates,
following a change in the name of
the entity or
following the setting up of new production or sales
entities) should be addressed to the Commission (1)
forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any
modification in the company's activities
linked to
production, domestic and export sales associated with,
for example that name change or that change in the
production and sales entities. The Commission, if appro-
consultation with the Advisory
priate, will,
Committee, amend the Decision accordingly by updating
the list of companies benefiting from individual duty
rates.

after

People's Republic of China

8,1 %

(64)

India
— Steel Authority of India Ltd

Romania
— Sidex SA
— Other

22,3 %

5,7 %
11,5 %

3. Undertakings

The following exporting companies in Romania have
offered a joint price undertaking in accordance with
Article 8(1) of
the basic Decision: Sidex SA, Sidex
Trading SRL, Metalexportimport SA, Metanef SA, Meta-
grimex Business Group SA, Uzinsider SA, Uzinexport
SA, Shiral Trading Impex SRL, Metaltrade International
‘97 SRL, Romilexim Trading Limited SRL and Metal SA.
The price undertaking offered concerns sales of
the
products,
covered by the undertaking, which are
produced by Sidex SA and sold directly (i.e. invoiced and
shipped) by Sidex SA, or one of the other signatories, to
an unrelated customer in the Community. In the case of
India, an undertaking has also been offered by the Steel
Authority of India Ltd for the products it produces and
sells directly in the Community.

In the case of Romania, due to the low level of coopera-
tion, the residual injury margin was calculated by refer-
ence to the category of products which was exported in

(1) European Commission

Directorate-General for Trade
Directorate C
DM 24-8/38
Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 200
B-1049 Brussels

L 202/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.8.2000

(65)

(66)

The Commission considers that the undertakings offered by these companies can be accepted since
they will eliminate the injurious effect of the dumping. Furthermore, the regular and detailed reports
which the companies have undertaken to provide to the Commission will allow an effective
monitoring of the undertakings.

In order to ensure that the undertakings are respected, when the request for release for free
circulation pursuant to the undertakings is presented, exemption from the duty is conditional upon
presentation to the relevant Member States' customs service of a valid ‘undertaking invoice’ clearly
identifying the producer and containing the information listed in the Annex to this Decision. Where
no such invoice is presented, or when it does not correspond to the product presented to the
customs service, the appropriate rate of anti-dumping duty will be payable in order to avoid
circumvention of the undertaking.

(67)

In the event of a breach or withdrawal of the undertaking an anti-dumping duty may be imposed,
pursuant to Articles 8(9) and 10 of the basic Decision.

J. COLLECTION OF PROVISIONAL DUTIES

(68) Given the magnitude of the dumping margins found for the exporting producers, and in the light of
the level of the injury caused to the Community industry, it is considered necessary that the amounts
secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty under the provisional Decision should be
definitively collected at the rate of the duty definitively imposed. Where the rate of the definitive duty
imposed is higher than the rate of the provisional duty, only the amount secured at the level of the
provisional duty should be definitively collected,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

1.
A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of certain flat products of non-alloy
steel, not clad, plated or coated, not in coils, not futher worked than hot-rolled, other than with patterns in
relief of a width of 600 mm or more and a thickness exceeding 10 mm or of a width of 2 050 mm or
more and a thickness of 4,75 mm or more but not exceeding 10 mm, originating in the People's Republic
of China, India and Romania and falling within CN codes ex 7208 51 30, ex 7208 51 50, ex 7208 51 91,
ex 7208 51 99 and ex 7208 52 91 (TARIC codes: 7208 51 30 10, 7208 51 50 10, 7208 51 91 10,
7208 51 99 10 and 7208 52 91 10).

The rates of duty applicable to the net free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty, for products

2.
produced by the following companies, shall be:

Country

Company

Rate of anti-dumping duty

TARIC additional code

People's Republic of China

All companies

India

All companies

Romania

Sidex SA

All other companies

8,1 %

22,3 %

5,7 %

11,5 %

—

A999

A069

A999

The duties shall not apply to imports of the product concerned, manufactured by Steel Authority of
3.
India Ltd and originating in India or manufactured by Sidex SA and originating in Romania, when the
goods are directly exported (i.e. shipped and invoiced) by the companies named in Article 2(1) to the
importer in the Community and the conditions of Article 2(2) are fulfilled.

4.

Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.

10.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 202/29

The undertakings offered by the following companies in connection with this anti-dumping

1.
proceeding are hereby accepted.

Article 2

Country

Company

TARIC additional code

India

Romania

Steel Authority of India Ltd,
New Delhi

Sidex SA,
Galati

Sidex Trading SRL,
Galati

Metalexportimport SA,
Bucarest

Metanef SA,
Bucarest

Metagrimex Business Group SA,
Bucarest

Uzinsider SA,
Bucarest

Uzinexport SA,
Bucarest

Shiral Trading Impex SRL,
Bucarest

Metaltrade International
Bucarest

'97 SRL,

Romilexim Trading Limited SRL,
Bucarest

Metal SA,
Galati

A178

A069

A179

A179

A179

A179

A179

A179

A179

A179

A179

A179

2. When the request for release for free circulation pursuant to an undertaking is presented, exemption
from the duty shall be conditional upon presentation to the relevant Member States' customs service of a
valid Undertaking Invoice issued by the companies mentioned in Article 2(1). The essential elements of the
undertaking invoice are listed in the Annex to this Decision. Imports accompanied by such an invoice shall
be declared under the TARIC additional code provided for in Article 2(1).

Exemption from the duty shall further be conditional on the goods declared and presented to customs
corresponding precisely to the description on the undertaking invoice.

Article 3

The amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty on imports originating in the People's
Republic of China, India and Romania under Decision No 307/2000/ECSC shall be collected at the rate of
the duty definitively imposed by this Decision. Amounts secured in excess of the rate of definitive
anti-dumping duty shall be released. Where the rate of the definitive duty imposed is higher than the rate of
the provisional duty, only the amount secured at the level of the provisional duty should be definitively
collected.

This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the
European Communities.

Article 4

L 202/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.8.2000

This Decision shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 9 August 2000.

For the Commission

Pascal LAMY

Member of the Commission

ANNEX

Elements to be indicated in the undertaking invoice referred to in Article 2(2):

1. The invoice date and the invoice number.

2. The export licence number.

3. The CN code, TARIC code and TARIC additional code under which the goods on the invoice are customs-cleared at

Community borders (as specified in Article 2(1)).

4. The exact description of the goods,

including:

— the product reporting code number (PRC) as established in the undertaking offered by the exporting producer in

question,

including quality of steel, width and thickness of invoiced plates,

— quantity (to be given in tonnes).

5. The description of the terms of the sale,

including:

— price per tonne,
— the applicable payment terms,
— the applicable delivery terms,
— total discounts and rebates.

6. The name of the official of the company that has issued the undertaking invoice and the following signed declaration:

‘I, the undersigned, certify that the sale for direct export to the European Community of the goods covered by this
invoice is being made within the scope and under the terms of the undertaking offered by … (company), and accepted
by the European Commission through Decision No 1758/2000/ECSC. I declare that the information provided in this
invoice is complete and correct.’